Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lolerz - are you sure about the payer not being responsible?   On hmrc website there's a section about 'joint and several liability'....  It appears J&SL could apply if "hmrc believe it can show that you knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that VAT would go unpaid".   They check to see if there is "sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to show the requisite knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion".    The email trail indicates the payer (the instigator of the deal with the contractor) must have known costs were being kept artificially low due to vat not being charged.  There were emails between the parties indicating the ongoing budget, and its constraints.  Invoices were issued in-line with the budget emails and emailed to the party over-seeing the works & budget - who then regularly passed the emails/ invoices on to the accounts team for payment.  There was constant dialogue between all parties on the sums payable..  Vat was not included on any invoices.   Thus the payer, on the balance of probabilities, had the requisite knowledge to assess that vat fraud was being implemented.    The payer ceo was also cc-ed into many emails.  There's also a couple instances of a 3rd party forwarding the contractor's invoices.  This could appear quite innocuous.  But this 3rd party (different surname) appears to share addresses with/ be a partner of the contractor (in biblical sense).  I don't have the investigative power of hmrc - but my simple research shows further (property) links between the ceo, the contractor and his 'partner'.   If they constantly do works projects together as a team then there is a propensity for regular vat evasion.  In my particular matter, the lender is trying to pass all the costs of works on to me.   So from an auditing perspective they are passing the buck to me; the payer appears to be me - whilst the actual payer (who is complicit in the evasion/ fraud) actually gets hidden (gets lost in the disclose-able paperwork).   A few years ago they set up a department to handle development of repossessed properties.  So how many times have they used a contractor and not paid vat for works? How many times have they passed the costs on to the borrower whilst attempting to absolve themselves of any participatory (vat fraud) guilt?   This is actually a potentially really big issue, that goes way beyond my own issue with them.  I don't benefit.  But if they are guilty on an industrial scale of not paying building contractor vat, facilitating vat fraud, and manipulating/ hiding the figures  behind borrower's debts - then this will be further vindication of what utter scoundrels they are.    The Govt website says if you notice tax fraud you 'must' disclose it.
    • I've never had an Egg loan. Just to confirm. Definitely not a loan. Yes. It is an 11 digit 'reference' number.
    • Some time ago i made a complaint to Lowell regarding what i felt was their harrassment due to the volume of letters I was receiving from them. I know i should have ignored it, but it was upsetting my wife that they kept sending them so I thought i would complain and see if anything could be done about it. i have just received their reply to my complaint, which no surprise they havent upheld. However they said something in that letter that didnt feel "right" to me and i wanted to see what people's opinion of this was please: Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act relates to the original lender and not a debt purchaser such as Lowell. As the original terms of the agreement have not been met, due to payments falling into arrears and the account being in default, the requirement to provide a copy agreement no longer applies. I know this is incorrect, and frankly want to challenge this in any way i can, it feels very wrong that a collection agency can set aside or ignore sections of the law like this. Or should i just leave it and continue to try and ignore the letters? I would welcome any advice. Thanks.    
    • Watch this webinar to explore what young people think about the 2024 general election with early insight into the 2024 Youth Voice Census.View the full article
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Millennium 2x Windscreen PCNs - Cardiff flats


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2464 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I have received 2 Parking Charge Notices (for different contraventions) that are at different stages. I have received the NTK for infringement 1 while infringement 2 occurred on August 31st so I still have a few days before the NTK is sent.

 

I am looking for some advice as I feel both have been administered unfairly. Please let me know if it's advisable to open a new thread for the second PCN to avoid confusion.

 

PCN 1

 

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement?

04/08/2017

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? No

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) - YES

what date is on it - 05/09/2017

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

YES

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) NO

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company?

Millennium Parking Services

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?

Live in a rented flat in Cardiff,

returned from holiday on August 3rd to find out the car park (private parking) was to be regulated by Millennium Parking Services starting on August 1st.

 

We were unaware they were being brought in.

Each flat has one allocated space but I live with my partner, both have cars so when the building management company provided us with permit we had one for a permanent resident (my partner uses) and one visitor pass

- I used the visitor pass and placed it in the windscreen.

 

Now the contravention Millennium Parking Services have said is that it wasn't displayed clearly.

 

As I wasn't provided with the plastic pocket I placed it in the corner of my windscreen.

The photos that Millennium have taken are from an angle where you can't see the expiry date or that it states Visitor permit.

 

The PCN was issued 3 days after they began regulating and you can clearly see it is the permit we have been provided.

 

What advice would you give for this contravention?

I have attached an image of the permit,

the permit displayed on the day and the image the NTK has provided.

 

 

 

 

PCN 2

 

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement?

31/08/2017

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? No

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) - NO

what date is on it - N/A

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

N/A

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) N/A

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company?

Millennium Parking Services

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?

 

As mentioned in PCN1 we have private parking, and although we have 2 cars unfortunately there's only 1 car parking space allocated but there are 4 visitor spaces specifically for the building apartment.

 

However upon moving into the flat I asked the estate agent what the process was for residents who had 2 cars and the response was that it's "first come first serve" for the visitor spaces and that other residents use them to park their car in.

 

The contravention on PCN 2 is that I was parked for longer than the prescribed time.

I have attached an image of the signage around the car park which does advise 'visitors' can only park for 24 hours and there's no return for 24 hours

 

I work in Cardiff and walk back and forth to work

my car will often be left for 2/3 days without use at a time

 

I don't want this ticket to be the first of many.

I have written to the building management who it seems don't want to get involved

 

feel at a bit of a lose end as I can't see the point of appealing.

 

Any help for either will be very much appreciated

- please let me know if it's easier to start a second thread for the second PCN.

 

I will be back on here around 5pm tomorrow evening

 

so will respond to any questions or queries then.

 

Thanks in advance guys!

IMG_2700.pdf

IMG_2912.pdf

IMG_2991.pdf

IMG_2940.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest supremacy of contract you win here??

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth getting together with other tenants to have a pop at the Management Agents to try to boot the fleecers out, is there an issue with chancers parking in Resident bays at the site?

 

Otherwise as per DX your Tenancy/Lease conditions would trump Millennium anyway if 2 spaces allocated to your property in the tenancy documents.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt be in a hurry to appeal to them, they are members of the IPC and their appeals system is crooked by their own admission so not worth entering into.

 

The signage says they are BPA members when they are not, this is against the law so makes the contract void anyway but that wont stop them trying their luck

 

You had an agreement with the managing agents who hired them that trumps their claim so this rubbishes the first ticket.

 

 

As for the second one, wait for the NTK and then it may we worth writing to them ONCE just to create a paper trail to show you are reasonable and they are not should they want to take things further.

 

You can also sue them for breach of the DPA in obtaining your keeper details when they had no reason to do so, contrary to their KADOE contract. Again, worth considering later.

 

Your tenancy has the legal force of the lease to protect you from these bandits applying any conditions on parking in your own spot.

They should know this but again either try their luck (and succeed quite often or they wouldnt go near residential parking) or are badly advised (Will and John at the IPC are the worlds most brilliant legal minds as they are Gladstones solicitors so that cant be the case!) and may blunder on regardless of logic.

 

In the meanwhile you can ask the council to instruct them to remove the signs as thery are in breach of the advertising display regs of the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay

- I've gone through the tenancy agreement and there's nothing in black and white confirming the parking situation,

 

we've just had verbal communication with the estate agents while the building management have never mentioned anything about parking to us.

 

As per reply from brassnecked I've left notices around the building asking for information from other residents regarding any potential PCN's they may have received and any grievances they may have.

 

I've also emailed the building management asking who owns the land which the car park is on but I'm waiting for them to get back to me.

 

Message timed out before I completed it. In short, sit tight and wait for them to get in touch but just build up evidence against them?

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply, it's much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the tenancy agreement wont say anything,

it is the LEASE that will.

the tenancy passes over those rights to you.

 

the building management wont help you,

they pocket a backhander for introducing these bandits to the site

so you will have to rely on what you have already in that part

 

read other posts on residential parking so you get to know your enemy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...